Lovin summa dat Hope & Change

\\((|))// said:
Only those who cannot read and comprehend the factual evidence I presented...
Click to expand...

So the whole premise of your debunking is that OWEbama just didn't say "when" premiums were going to come down? Am I reading you correctly? I just want to clarify before I smack you down. Thanks for playing. Tread carefully. You are in thin ice
 
FactsRStubborn said:
So the whole premise of your debunking is that OWEbama just didn't say "when" premiums were going to come down?
Click to expand...

Your reading and comprehension issues seem serious.

FactsRStubborn said:
Am I reading you correctly?
Click to expand...

If you have to ask, what do you think? Do you think?

FactsRStubborn said:
I just want to clarify before I smack you down. Thanks for playing. Tread carefully. You are in thin ice
Click to expand...

Hilarious.

Dance some more, puppet.
 
\\((|))// said:
Your reading and comprehension issues seem serious.



If you have to ask, what do you think? Do you think?



Hilarious.

Dance some more, puppet.
Click to expand...

Been down this road before with your vague bullshit. You post a link to an article that makes a suppose claim then when you get it shove back in your face you run and hide. So take a position. No links. Your own opinion. Yes or no. Do you think OWEbama was not clear in when we could expect premiums to come down? Is that YOUR position. If you come back with more of your usual evasive bullshit then I will take that as a concession?
 
FactsRStubborn said:
Been down this road before with your vague bullshit. You post a link to an article that makes a suppose claim then when you get it shove back in your face you run and hide. So take a position. No links. Your own opinion. Yes or no. Do you think OWEbama was not clear in when we could expect premiums to come down? Is that YOUR position. If you come back with more of your usual evasive bullshit then I will take that as a concession?
Click to expand...

Dance, puppet, dance.

I posted facts that clearly rebut the article cited in your OP.

Deal with it, loser.
 
\\((|))// said:
Dance, puppet, dance.

I posted facts that clearly rebut the article cited in your OP.

Deal with it, loser.
Click to expand...

are you sure this is the stance you want to take? There is no going back when I apply the ass whoopin on you. I have given you more than enough chances. My Christian faith compels me to be charitable to those less fortunate such as yourself.
 
FactsRStubborn said:
are you sure this is the stance you want to take? There is no going back when I apply the ass whoopin on you. I have given you more than enough chances. My Christian faith compels me to be charitable to those less fortunate such as yourself.
Click to expand...

LOL, have your pastor PM me.

Dance, puppet, dance.

I posted facts that clearly rebut the article cited in your OP.

Deal with it, loser.
 
\\((|))// said:
LOL, have your pastor PM me.

Dance, puppet, dance.

I posted facts that clearly rebut the article cited in your OP.

Deal with it, loser.
Click to expand...


Here is his quote again. You deal with it.

BTW is this you not defending OWEbama?

:rofl2:

your online meltdown is almost complete. Keep up the good work Pinnochio
 
Get an adult to explain the big words to you, my lil' racist puppet:

Of course, once Obama became president, the health care proposal he advocated as a candidate was significantly changed, even to the point of accepting the individual mandate that he had so criticized when Hillary Rodham Clinton promoted it.


But the White House more or less stuck to the idea that costs would not rise as quickly as previously estimated — except that it would result in $2,000 in savings by 2019. (Recall also that the health care law will not be implemented until 2014, making a first-term pledge problematic.)


Now, let’s look at what the Romney campaign has done with the pledge.


First, it assumes that Obama was saying that premiums would actually decline by $2,500, rather than decline from a projected increase.


Then, it takes the 2011 Kaiser Family Foundation survey estimate (Exhibit 1.11) and subtracts the cost of a 2008 family premium ($12,680) from the cost of a 2011 premium ($15,073). Voila, an increase of $2,393—and a promise gap of $4,893.


The Romney campaign’s math is nonsensical.


First of all, the Kaiser survey is conducted from January to May each year, so starting with the 2008 date makes little sense, since that is still George W. Bush’s term.


Then the health care law was not passed until 2010, so the first year in which any impact could be seen from the law was in 2011.


But, as the Kaiser report notes, most of the provisions of the new law will not take effect in 2014.


Thus far, other provisions, such as providing coverage for adult children up to age 26, appear to have had a modest impact on premiums--perhaps 1 to 2 percentage points. (The White House disputes even that effect.)


Still, the full effect on premiums — including any possible savings — will not be seen until the law is completely implemented.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...k3IW_blog.html
 
\\((|))// said:
Get an adult to explain the big words to you, my lil' racist puppet:

Of course, once Obama became president, the health care proposal he advocated as a candidate was significantly changed, even to the point of accepting the individual mandate that he had so criticized when Hillary Rodham Clinton promoted it.


But the White House more or less stuck to the idea that costs would not rise as quickly as previously estimated — except that it would result in $2,000 in savings by 2019. (Recall also that the health care law will not be implemented until 2014, making a first-term pledge problematic.)


Now, let’s look at what the Romney campaign has done with the pledge.


First, it assumes that Obama was saying that premiums would actually decline by $2,500, rather than decline from a projected increase.


Then, it takes the 2011 Kaiser Family Foundation survey estimate (Exhibit 1.11) and subtracts the cost of a 2008 family premium ($12,680) from the cost of a 2011 premium ($15,073). Voila, an increase of $2,393—and a promise gap of $4,893.


The Romney campaign’s math is nonsensical.


First of all, the Kaiser survey is conducted from January to May each year, so starting with the 2008 date makes little sense, since that is still George W. Bush’s term.


Then the health care law was not passed until 2010, so the first year in which any impact could be seen from the law was in 2011.


But, as the Kaiser report notes, most of the provisions of the new law will not take effect in 2014.


Thus far, other provisions, such as providing coverage for adult children up to age 26, appear to have had a modest impact on premiums--perhaps 1 to 2 percentage points. (The White House disputes even that effect.)


Still, the full effect on premiums — including any possible savings — will not be seen until the law is completely implemented.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...k3IW_blog.html
Click to expand...

You sure twist yourself into a pretzel to defend OWEbama. What is funny is you claim you don't know who "OWEbama" is, but you keep defending someone you claim to not know.

:rofl2:
 
Intelligent people would know that Obamacare hasn't even been fully implemented yet and greedy insurance companies are jacking up the premiums now while they can.
 
Howey said:
Intelligent people would know that Obamacare hasn't even been fully implemented yet and greedy insurance companies are jacking up the premiums now while they can.
Click to expand...

That explains why my lil' racist puppet doesn't know it, even though I posted the proof.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top